The period of adhoc appointment of medical officers, if it is against substantive vacancies and continues for a considerable period of time, is to be counted towards their seniority.

M.L. Bhat, J.

1. The petitioners pray for writ of certiorari and mandamus. Rule 7(1) of the U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 be declared ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A mandamus is prayed to command the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners with reference to the date of their initial appointment in the Provincial Medical Service and it is prayed that the respondents be directed to place the petitioners as senior to all the doctors appointed subsequent to their date of appointment in the Provincial Medical Service etc. etc.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that he does net want to press the relief for certiorari challenging the vires of Rule 7(1) of the U.P. Regularisation on Adhoc Appointment Rules, 1979 but wants to confine his arguments for seeking a prayer of mandamus with regard to fixation of seniority only the relevant facts for the decision of this writ petition, as set out in the pleadings of the parties, are briefly stated, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Medical Officer in the Provincial Medical Service (hereinafter called 'P.M.S.') on adhoc basis on 21-2-1969. He is said to have joined on 7-6-1969. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 30-8-1965 in the P.M.S. as Medical Officer on adhoc basis) He is said to have joined on 4-9-1965. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Medical Officer in the P.M.S. on adhoc basis on 9-11 1962 and he is said to have joined his post on 16-11-1962. The petitioner No. 4 was appointed on adhoc basis as Medical Officer in P.M.S. is 1967 The petitioner No. 5 was appointed to the said service on 11-7-1959, He joined the post on 23-8-1969. The petitioner No. 6 was appointed to the said service on 31-1-1970 and he joined the post on 7-2-1970. The petitioner No 7 was appointed on adhoc basis to the said post en 14-9-1972 and he in said to have Joined his post on 26-9-1962. Since their appointment on adhoc basis in the P.M.S. the petitioners are said to be continuing in service as Medical Officers.

3. On 14-5-1979 the State of U.P. is said to have framed Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment Rules, 1979. These rules prescribe regularisation of services of those Medical Officers, who were appointed on adhoc basis subject to certain conditions Rule 7(1) of these rules prescribe that a person appointed under 1979 Rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with the 1979 Rules is made and shall be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the Service Rules. It is averred that in pursuance of Rule 4 of the Rules a Selection Committee was constituted, which considered the case of the petitioners for regular appointment under the rules and found the petitioners suitable for regular appointment. The petitioners were ordered to be regularised in service in terms of Annexure 2 to the writ petition The petitioners are said to have made representations on different dates to the concerned authorities for giving them due place in the seniority list after taking the period of their initial appointment into consideration which, in other words, means that they claimed seniority from the date of their initial appointment. When the petitioners had come to know that they were being placed below the direct appointees of 1970-71 batch of the Medical Officers, they made representation. The petitioners submit that their seniority is to be determined from the date of their appointment irrespective of the fact that their initial appointment was on adhoc basis. From the date of Joining of the service by the petitioners, the U.P. Public Service Commission has conducted examination only once i.e. 1970-71 and thereafter it was conducted in 1974 but no appointments were made on the basis of 1974 examination. It is contended that without interview the Public Service Com